Overview:
The Trump administration’s governing style is better understood as coercive rather than transactional, particularly when its selective treatment of Tribal sovereignty reveals a willingness to override Native Nations when their sovereignty conflicts with federal priorities.
I think we’ve been using the wrong word to describe Donald Trump’s presidency, “transactional.”
To read more articles by Mark Trahant, go to: Marktrahant.substack.com
Consider the definitions used by Aaron Blake for CNN Politics:
“… Trump’s transactions have relied on implied threats or quid pro quos, he’s increasingly coming out and saying them out loud.
“His brazenness was on display on multiple fronts over the last eight days. Last week, he promised American adults thousands of dollars each if they elect Republican majorities in November. This week, he’s repeatedly threatened to abandon or even tear down the Kennedy Center if he’s not allowed to put his name on it.
“And on Wednesday night, he jokingly threatened to withhold disaster aid from North Carolina if it elects a Democratic senator (except maybe it’s not a joke, judging by Trump’s track record).
“To so openly talk about tying official actions to his political and personal interest should be scandalous. And it was a scandal in Trump’s first term, as evidenced by his impeachment.
“His transactionalism is treated as less scandalous today in large part because Americans already know it’s how Trump’s been conducting business for the last 20 months.”
But I don’t think transactionalism is the right word (even though it’s used a lot in political theory) because a transaction is deal based, both sides have to get something out of the arrangement. Trump is a bully. His deals are one-sided.
For example officials in his administration praise “tribal sovereignty” when that authority is pointed in a direction the administration wants, such as fossil fuels or data centers. But when sovereignty is a barrier to immigration, it’s inconvenient and ignored. This is complicated by the fact that the United States is supposed to act as the legal the trustee, working in the best interests of tribal nations.
From a news release yesterday from the Native American Rights Fund:
“The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona represented by the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) filed an amicus brief in Tohono O’odham Nation v. Mullin, a case currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the federal government’s planned construction of a border wall through the Tohono O’odham Nation’s reservation in Arizona.
“The brief represents Tribal voices in Arizona and across Indian Country that are alarmed by the federal government’s trespass on the Tohono O’odham Nation’s reservation and are opposed to this unlawful infringement on Tribal sovereignty.
“Tribal Nations were sovereign long before the formation of the United States, and today we continue to exercise sovereignty over our lands,” said NCAI President Mark Macarro. “The administration’s actions reflect a blatant disregard for the sovereignty of the Tohono O’odham Nation. Indian Country stands with the Nation as it seeks to hold the federal government accountable.”
“Tribal Nations have a unique relationship with the federal government. Part of this relationship imposes a duty on the United States to steward and protect Tribal Nations’ land bases. The federal government’s actions on the Tohono O’odham Nation’s reservation are a dereliction of the duties the United States owes to Tribal Nations,” said NARF Staff Attorney Mitchell Forbes.”
There was nothing tranactional about Homeland Security’s incursion into Tohono O’odham Nation. And the trustee — in this case, HHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, did not even consider the issues about sovereignty, opting to send in masked agents at 4 am.
